The following excerpt is from Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Com'n, 165 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999):
Of course, "[n]ot all burdens on religion are unconstitutional." Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 701, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986). Even substantial burdens on religious exercise may be justified by a showing that a regulation's restrictions are necessary to the achievement of some compelling state interest. Whether a compelling governmental interest justifies Alaska's anti-marital-status discrimination laws is the question to which we now turn.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.